§

B. T. Mancini Co.

269 N.L.R.B. 869 (N.L.R.B. 1984)
B. T. Mancini Co.

4 Cited authorities

  1. J.I. Case Co. v. Labor Board

    321 U.S. 332 (1944)   Cited 457 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the result of a collective bargaining agreement is not "a contract of employment except in rare cases; no one has a job by reason of it and no obligation to any individual ordinarily comes into existence from it alone"

  2. N.L.R.B. v. Interboro Contractors, Inc.

    388 F.2d 495 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.

  3. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. H.C. Smith Constr

    439 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 2 times

    No. 25300. March 19, 1971. Paul J. Spielberg (argued), Atty., NLRB, Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C.; Charles Henderson, Director, NLRB, Washington, D.C., for appellant. H. William Coder (argued), of Burton Coder, Great Falls, Mont., for appellant. Before BROWNING and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, District Judge. Honorable Harry Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District

  4. National Labor Rel. Board v. B M Excavating

    368 F.2d 624 (9th Cir. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    No. 20936. November 8, 1966. Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Nancy M. Sherman, Gregory L. Hellbung, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Patrick B. Phelan, Long Beach, Cal., for respondent. Before HAMLEY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board (Board) did not err in finding and concluding that B M Excavating, Inc., is subject to the Board's jurisdiction